Grummer
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2006
- Messages
- 14,707
- Reaction score
- 12
Well, the Swedish studies have proven that when a child has access to language, ANY language, be it vocal or signed, at a young age and is able to have access to education taught in the language they can follow, they do better.
However, the reality is - you live in an English speaking country, so do I, so does Berry, AJWSmith, Shel90 and it IS an advantage to be able to speak and lipread. Can one function without speaking and lipread? Certainly. Of course. But does one function better in an English-speaking hearing world if they are able to at least lipread, of course. Just open your front door and sign at someone. They won't understand. They speak back to you, and you have no lipreading skills, you don't understand.
If we lived on a Deaf island where there are no hearing speaking people, we could totally live in a fully industrious society with no need for hearing or speaking but we don't.
so, we have to be realistic and ask ourselves, what edge can we give ourselves in a hearing speaking world? It's not a threat to our identity to be able to communicate in more than one language, to add more tools to our communication abilities. My son is anglo, he's fluent in French, does that mean he's no longer anglo? Not at all. It just means he's fluent in more than one language.
And obviously, the younger the person, the greater they are able to acquire a language so if we want kids to be able to lipread and speak, we do have to start young. The Swedish paper GrendelQ linked to said however that the younger the child is implanted, the less likely parents will use sign and that affects the child's linguistic development in any language. That's very concerning.
OK...i did knew that about the reality of the excess idealism of being COMPLETELY ENCULTURATED in a Deaf Way, I agree with that. Wee bit about myself, I am too mself have some speech (pretty good actually, half of them wouldnt know im deaf) and too I have like you, endured a full range of subtle and not-so-subtle forms of audist oppressions.
About GrendelQ's links about the concern of parents getting lazy and falling back to hoping their child would be more hearing than deaf/Deaf by withdrawing their contribution to sign to their children is Indeed a genuine worry for it would will perpentuate the dire straits which we all encounters as being d/Deaf in the hearing world, due to lack of empathy, lack of connection with those are biologically closest to us, our parents.
It is Cruel not to come half way with their child to speak the language of eyes and hands, for it is a much quicker path to socialisation and learning the social make ups that 'explains' the world to us. That is the biggest hole which mainstream-oral only do not suffice to provide young/growing up teenagers d/Deaf kids....the warped/porous knowledge of the world is going to hurt alot on the ability to [hearing-] socially fit in the working world simply the hypothetically grew up CI-kids are still going to lack this 'business savvy/hearing-world knowledge to provide their skills to employers whose are predominantly Hearing, and that is going to make it hard to survive. After all , school along with media teaches us that the developed world which we live, have thing we can do to enjoy so whats the point of getting jobs that only gives us survival but not anything else above it? and No I dont wish to say oralism is better because...id be quite careful about that lines Caroline, but i know what you mean, but for sake of theorium and practice and the links yet havent developed (like my idea of "Hearing Culture" as a compulsory school curriculum for d/Deaf children thru to high school/university levels...i really think this is a worthwhile possibility we should be thinking about also.
G